http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
IN watching the Enron hearings, it seems a shame that we do not have a live
analyst like Olympic skating events to describe the sheer brilliance of some
of the moves of the members. Without a guide, a viewer is often unaware of
the level of difficulty of previously Enron-sponsored members performing
demonstrations of public interest. For these members, the transformation
from Enron advocates to public advocates is akin to a triple-axel jump while
holding an over-stuffed bank bag.

The Enron hearings have actually shown Congress at the top of its game as
the master of investigations. Just as some demolition companies are skilled
in controlled explosions that can drop a building without touching adjoining
structures on either side, Congress can control a scandal so that it
implodes in just the right way to avoid any injury to its members ­ in this
case, members who were sitting on the laps of the designated defendants like
Kenneth Lay.

Former advocates of Enron need these hearings for a dose of personal
rehabilitation. For example, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D, Houston) was one of
the greatest recipients of Enron largess. Jackson-Lee was one of Layıs
"projects" when he served as her fund-raising chairman and kept her
well-supported in contributions. Jackson-Lee, who is fighting an ethics
controversy on a different front, has been busy reinventing herself from
Enron promoter to converted reformer in media events around town.

Likewise, other members have expressed surprise that, after Enron
successfully lobbied them for looser regulation, the company engaged in
shady dealings. This included the so-called "Enron Exemption" that allowed
companies to withhold reporting information on trades as well as accounting
practices that allowed for conflicts in interest. Like Claude Rains in
Casablanca, they are now all officially "shocked, shocked" to find Enron
executives gambling with stockholdersı money.

C-Span should publish a viewerıs guide for citizens to understand the
upcoming performances in these hearings. For the uninitiated, there are a
few things to watch for. First, listen for "threats" of immunity. There is
already some talk of "forcing" these men to testify with grants of immunity.
Immunity grants can actually protect individuals like Lay from prosecution
in the name of public inquiry. For example, a grant of immunity to Col.
Oliver North ultimately led to the overturning of his criminal conviction.

Viewers should also look for the selection of "designated defendants,"
including Lay, Andrew Fastow and Michael Kopper. This is why the public
witnessed the largely empty exercise of forcing Lay to appear so that he
would refuse to testify. Other executives like Enronıs Jeff Skilling walked
right into the trap and now appear the focus of possible criminal charges
stemming from conflicts in their testimony.

Next viewers should look for the selection of the heroes who resisted the
Enron cabal. These include figures like accountant Sherron Watkins,
executive Margaret Ceconi, and lawyer Jordan Mintz. This may require a bit
of rehabilitation since only Ceconi appears to have taken the step to notify
federal authorities of possible fraud or to move meaningfully outside of the
company to protect investors or employees.

Viewers should also listen for any reference to the "matrix," a taboo
subject for some members. Enron reportedly reduced political influence
peddling to a science with a computer matrix that calculated the costs of
changing rules and laws to advance its interests. Congress is not eager to
reveal how easy it was for Enron to flourish in this environment, including
significant changes that helped conceal or facilitate its activities.

Finally, viewers will see two different approaches to testimony emerge in
the coming weeks. Designated defendants will continue to push the hearings
into minutiae and detail. Except for CPAs on the edge of their seats last
week, most Americans found the hearings to be a cure for insomnia in the
complex dealings of this company. This is exactly what some witnesses will
strive for. Members, however, will attempt to personify and simplify the
nature of this conduct. This is why members will focus questions on certain
people like Lay to create a reference points for the public to follow.

Of course, these hearings may come at a cost. There is little question as to
which laws need to be changed or how Enron was able to commit these acts.
Any true accountability will be found not in a committee room but a
courtroom. However, Enron and Anderson committed the mortal sin of exposing
their most intimate friends and they will be punished for their
transgressions. Lay and other Enron executives are now learning the oldest
rule of intimacy within the Beltway: scratch a lover, find a
foe.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School. Comment by clicking here.

02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners01/14/02: Your papers, please!01/07/02: Prescription for disaster12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living 10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit08/27/01: Working out the body politic